CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 362Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesEmbodied and Extended CognitionMotor Control and Adaptation

The soft constraints hypothesis: A rational analysis approach to resource allocation for interactive behavior.

Gray, Wayne D., Sims, Chris R., Fu, Wai-Tat, Schoelles, Michael J.·2006·Psychological Review
DOI 10.1037/0033-295x.113.3.461
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Soft constraints hypothesis (SCH) is a rational analysis approach that holds that the mixture of perceptual-motor and cognitive resources allocated for interactive behavior is adjusted based on temporal cost-benefit tradeoffs. Alternative approaches maintain that cognitive resources are in some sense protected or conserved in that greater amounts of perceptual-motor effort will be expended to conserve lesser amounts of cognitive effort. One alternative, the minimum memory hypothesis (MMH), holds that people favor strategies that minimize the use of memory. SCH is compared with MMH across 3 experiments and with predictions of an Ideal Performer Model that uses ACT-R's memory system in a reinforcement learning approach that maximizes expected utility by minimizing time. Model and data support the SCH view of resource allocation; at the under 1000-ms level of analysis, mixtures of cognitive and perceptual-motor resources are adjusted based on their cost-benefit tradeoffs for interactive behavior.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-295x.113.3.461

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Raising the costs of externalisations increases the use of internal strategies such as memory-based processing, whereas lowering the costs of externalisations increases the use of technical tools.

    “Raising the costs of externalisations (e.g., by adding additional physical or temporal demands) increases the use of internal strategies such as memory-based processing, whereas lowering the costs of externalisations increases the use of technical tools (e.g., Cary & Carlson, 2001; Gray & Fu, 2004; Gray et al., 2006; Morgan & Patrick, 2013; O’Hara & Payne, 1998; Schönpflug, 1986).”

    From Consequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory (2021) · cites this paper as Gray et al., 2006

  • Increasing access costs by adding temporal delays for each inspection of the model window shifts behaviour from offloading strategies to more memory-based strategies; thus, higher temporal costs reduce offloading behaviour.

    “the work of Fu and Gray (2000; see also Gray et al., 2006; Grinschgl, Meyerhoff, & Papenmeier, 2020; Patrick et al., 2015; Waldron et al., 2011) has shown that increasing access costs by adding temporal delays for each inspection of the model window results in a shift from offloading strategies to more memory-based strategies. Thus, higher temporal costs reduce offloading behaviour.”

    From Consequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory (2021) · cites this paper as Gray et al., 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 104 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gray, W. D., Sims, C. R., Fu, W.-T., & Schoelles, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Review
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2006
Volume
113
Issue
3
Pages
461-482
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
DOI
10.1037/0033-295x.113.3.461
OpenAlex
W2104514002
Cited by
360
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 24
FWCI
13.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Office of Naval Research (N000140310046)
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research (F49620-03-1-0143)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
resource allocation, cognitive effort, ACT-R, reinforcement learning, expected utility, interactive behavior
MeSH terms
Cognition, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Models, Psychological, Psychological Theory, Reinforcement, Psychology, Social Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review